PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-206.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jul 27, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to Senate on March 2, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Administrative Jurisdiction Transfer Act - Transfers the administrative jurisdiction of specified federal land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior.
Transfers the administrative jurisdiction of specified federal land in California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture. Withdraws such land from the public domain and reserves it for administration as part of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Prohibits the land transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture that is in the Trinity Alps Wilderness from affecting the wilderness status of that land.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretaries, with respect to the transferred lands, to identify any known sites concerning hazardous substances and to provide notice of any such sites to the head of the federal agency to which the land is being transferred. States that the Secretaries shall remain responsible for any cleanup of hazardous substances on the federal land which was under their administrative jurisdiction.
Prohibits anything in this Act from affecting any valid existing right, withdrawal, right-of-way, easement, lease, license, or permit.
People & committees
Rep. Herger, Wally [R-CA-2] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-206.
Became Public Law No: 111-206.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H5514-5515)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H5514-5515)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 689.
Ms. Bordallo moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H5514-5515)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3429-3431; text as passed Senate: CR S5431)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S3429-3431; text as passed Senate: CR S5431)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 295.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-145.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-145.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6022-6023)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6022-6023)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 689.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6022-6023)
Mrs. Christensen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 52.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-108.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-108.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E138)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.689 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.689 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.689 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.689 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.